中文 English

图书详情

首页

英文文献

我的书架

当前位置: 首页 > 图书详情

当代中国社会质量报告

THE REPORT OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL QUALITY IN CHINA

社会发展 研究报告 中国 现代

2018-12-01

978-7-5203-3725-0

329

12

扫码阅读

  • 内容简介
  • 书籍目录
  • 作者简介
  • 参考文献
内容简介

一 社会质量理念的缘起
启蒙运动以来,欧洲一直是人类社会进步理念的发祥地。平等、自由、公民权利、社会契约、社会福利……这些产生于欧洲的社会进步理念,已成为全球共识。产生于20世纪90年代后期的“社会质量理论”(Social Quality Theory)便是近20年来新的一项愿景。
1997年6月10日,在荷兰阿姆斯特丹举行的欧洲会议上,由1000名欧洲科学家签署并发布了《欧洲社会质量阿姆斯特丹宣言》
https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Amsterdam _ Declaration _ on _ Social_ Quality.htm.
(以下简称《宣言》)。这份不足千字的宣言表达了欧盟成员国的“欧洲梦”:
我们希望欧洲社会是一个经济上获得成功的社会,同时也是一个为其所有公民提升社会公正和社会参与水平的社会。这将使欧洲成为社会质量至上的社会。欧洲公民可以且被要求参与他们社区的社会和经济生活,并以此来提升他们的福祉、个人的潜能以及社区福利水平。为了能够参与,公民需要达到一个可接受的经济保障以及社会包容水平,生活在一个富有凝聚力的社区,并有权充分地发展自己的潜能。换言之,社会质量取决于全体欧洲公民享有其社区的经济、社会、政治公民权的程度。在全球化的经济中,竞争应当与社会凝聚力的提升和每个欧洲公民全部潜能的实现齐头并进。
社会质量理念的产生,有着数十年来欧洲一体化进程的历史背景。第二次世界大战使得欧洲诸国山河破碎,百废待兴。战后不久,时任英国首相温斯顿·丘吉尔倡议建立“欧洲合众国”,促发了欧洲统一化思潮。1949年西欧、北欧10国成立的“欧洲委员会”实质性地启动了欧洲一体化进程。20世纪50年代至60年代,“欧洲煤钢共同体”“欧洲经济共同体”“欧洲原子能共同体”等西欧诸国的跨国合作机制相继问世,至1965年《布鲁塞尔条约》签署,欧洲共同体(European Communities)正式宣告成立。在冷战时期,欧共体和美苏两国一起构成了“第一世界”的三大力量,在世界政治格局上举足轻重。1991年12月《马斯特里赫特条约》为欧共体成员国通过,并于1993年11月1日正式生效,标志着欧盟正式诞生,于此,欧洲一体化进程达到了顶峰:从经济合作转向经济政治的全方位实体化结盟。
欧盟——一体化的欧洲——将要表现一个什么样的欧洲社会?欧盟成员国的政要和学者们达成的共识是:一个社会质量至上的“欧洲社会模式”(ESM)。在这一发展模式中,社会质量被界定为“人们在提升他们的福祉和个人潜能的条件下,能够参与社区的社会与经济生活的程度”,具体而言,包括社会经济保障、社会包容、社会凝聚和自治或赋权水平。从中我们可以看出,社会质量理念是欧洲社会模式的价值核心。
社会质量理念的提出,体现了欧盟成员对欧洲一体化进程中发展模式的多层次反思。其一,社会质量理念是对20世纪80年代撒切尔主义推行的新自由政策,以私有化、减税、放松管制、鼓励竞争、削弱工会等为具体举措,带动的欧洲社会的“右倾化”的对抗。社会质量理论以“可持续的福利社会”作为发展前景。其二,社会质量理念是对一个不同于美国模式的欧洲社会模式的倡导。“二战”以来,美国的发展模式过于强调经济增长,强调市场至上,而欧洲的传统价值理念,更侧重社会公正、社会包容和社会团结。欧洲特色的发展道路,应该以公民权利和社会公正理念为基本导向,应该与美国以自由主义为宗旨的发展模式相区别。其三,社会质量理念是对欧洲一体化进程中多元化的制度和文化相互融合的结果。从欧共体到欧盟,加入一体化进程的成员国逐步增多。前苏联的解体、东欧前社会主义国家的转型,也使得欧盟不断向东扩容;欧元的发行和成员国间边界的开放增强了欧盟区内的人员和族群的流动。经济、政治、文化的融合,要求一体化的欧洲享有共同的价值认同和一致的社会政策。
由上可见,社会质量理念的提出,本身就不是囿于纯学术的范畴,而是有着非常明确的社会政策应用取向。其关键的功用,是“既要致力于成为公民评估国家和欧洲政策有效性的标准,也要成为制定政策的科学依据”。有鉴于此,欧盟委员会的专家学者将《宣言》中的社会质量的12项条件,逐步开发构造为4个维度、18个领域、49个子领域、91项指标的“欧洲社会质量指标体系”
参见林卡《社会质量:理论方法与国际比较》第二章,人民出版社2016年版,第14—26页。在欧洲学者后续的研究中,指标体系又扩展到95个指标。
二 中国引介社会质量理论的时代背景
虽然早在20世纪80年代末期,国内学者就使用“社会质量”这一概念开展学术研究,但所涉内容与欧盟倡导的“社会质量理论”并无关联。大概是2007年前后,来自欧洲的社会质量理论、指标体系和研究范式,被引介入中国学术界。其详细过程可参见本书第一章第五节的叙述,在此笔者不再做赘言。屈指算来不过12年的光景,社会质量在国内的研究进展迅速,已从学术译介阶段、理论研讨阶段,进入到社会政策的议题设置阶段;从研究范围来看,也从分散的、局部地区的经验研究,扩展到全国范围的大规模学术调查。一个来自异域的理论体系,能如此快地为国内学界所吸纳,并开辟出从理论到经验研究到社会政策应用的领域,纵观近年来社会科学研究领域,实不多见。若尝试探究其缘由,可能以“他山之石,可以攻玉”的古训来解读更为贴切。
其一,中国的改革开放目标中包含的共同富裕发展理念和社会质量理论中抑制市场至上的取向相符合。以市场机制促动经济增长,不可避免地会出现收入分配格局上的极化。对此,中国的政府一直在倡导先富带动后富最终达到共同富裕的发展理念。早在1978年12月13日中共中央工作会议闭幕式上,邓小平同志在著名的题为《解放思想,实事求是,团结一致向前看》的讲话中就指出:“在经济政策上,我认为要允许一部分地区、一部分企业、一部分工人农民,由于辛勤努力成绩大而收入先多一些,生活先好起来。一部分人生活先好起来,就必然产生极大的示范力量,影响左邻右舍,带动其他地区、其他单位的人们向他们学习。这样,就会使整个国民经济不断地波浪式地向前发展,使全国各族人民都能比较快地富裕起来。”
中共中央文献编辑委员会:《邓小平文选》第2卷,人民出版社1994年,第102页。
1984年《中共中央关于经济体制改革的决定》首次以党中央文件的形式正式提出:“只有允许和鼓励一部分地区、一部分企业和一部分人依靠勤奋劳动先富起来,才能对大多数人产生强烈的吸引和鼓舞作用,并带动越来越多的人一浪接一浪地走向富裕。”
中共中央文献研究室:《十二大以来重要文献选编》(中),人民出版社1988年,第64页。
由此可见,在改革开放初期,共同富裕就成为执政党在社会公平方向上的终极目标之一。在此之后,历次党的全国代表大会和历届政府,都把共同富裕作为核心的执政理念。在党的十九大报告中,习近平总书记再一次指出,我们党坚持以人民为中心的发展思想,不断促进人的全面发展、全体人民共同富裕。锲而不舍地谋求全体人民的共同富裕,实现社会公平正义,这一思想和欧洲的社会质量理论和政策中,以广泛的经济社会保障,发展社会保护,促动社会公正的倡导是高度契合的。
其二,中国的改革开放由经济增长进入到了成果分享阶段,公平正义的社会价值理念成为公众的核心需求。中国的GDP总量在2008年和2012年分别超越德国和日本,成为世界第二大经济体,2018年GDP总量超过90万亿元人民币,合13.6万亿美元,已接近同期美国经济总量的2/3。国民财富的增长,有效地拉动了社会消费,最终消费支出对国内生产总值增长的贡献率由1978年的38.3%提升至2017年的58.8%,40年间提升了20.5个百分点;同期的城乡居民恩格尔系数分别比1978年下降28.9和36.5个百分点;长期以来难以提振的消费内需,在互联网经济下得到释放性满足,2014—2107年间,实物商品网上零售额54806亿元,年均增速约为30%
参见国家统计局《国内市场繁荣活跃 消费结构转型升级——改革开放40年经济社会发展成就系列报告之七》,http://www.stats.gov.cn/ztjc/ztfx/ggkf40n/201809/t20180905_1621054.html。
。大众消费时代的公众不仅满足于日常用品和服务的享有,也必然对就业、教育、医疗、社保等领域的公共服务和社会福利的普遍分配提出要求,与之相应的社会公正理念也就越发得到重视。我们开展的“2013年中国社会状况综合调查”(CSS2013)数据显示,公众认为一个好社会应该具有的价值标准中,平等、民主、公正等理念被排在前端;CSS2017的调查中,近3/4的公众认为“社会保障是政府的责任,不应由普通百姓负担”,说明福利权利观已经形成,成为公众的“刚需”,是政府应对民众履行的核心义务。在这样一个时代背景下,欧洲的“社会质量理念”中对社会公正、社会福利的倡导,就格外得到中国学界的青睐。
其三,改革开放以来的中国处于社会群体利益不断分化过程中,需要社会凝聚与社会包容的价值以促动社会群体关系的再造。改革开放之初,中国的社会阶层结构常被称为“两大阶级一大阶层”(即工人阶级、农民阶级和知识分子阶层)。经过40年的工业化、市场化、城镇化的驱动,职业地位不断分化,新的社会阶层形态也较之计划体制时代更为繁复。20年前陆学艺先生主持的“中国当代社会阶层研究”课题,就提出了改革开放之后20年社会已分化为十大阶层
陆学艺等:《当代中国社会阶层研究报告》,社会科学文献出版社,2002年。
。21世纪的第二个十年以来,中国又呈现了新的发展阶段性特征。一是以2011年城镇化率突破50%为标志的城乡二元格局式微,二是2015年中国进入工业化后期阶段(还有学者称中国已进入后工业时代)带来的产业升级,三是互联网经济勃发导致的新型造富,四是移动互联通讯技术造就的社会交往便捷化,这一系列快速变迁对中国的社会阶层分化有着不可忽视的影响。以白领为代表的中间阶层、以进城务工人员为主体的中等收入群体日益壮大,“新社会群体”开始浮现,“蚁族”、“蜂族”、小镇青年等青年世代的亚文化群体登台,40年来社会财富的积累也在代际传承上体现了出来,阶层固化现象也使得“X二代”成为社会高度关注的话题。与此同时,社会群体利益关系更为错综复杂,社会价值取向也更加多元,社会核心价值理念的拥趸者也呈现出代际之间、城乡之间、精英与草根之间的分野。纵观共和国的70年,从未有如当今社会的多样群体、多元利益、多维价值、多种声音。一个多元社会的整合,必须要依靠广大社会成员共同接受并遵循的互尊、互信、互助、兼容的社会价值原则和社会行为规则。由此而言,欧洲社会质量理论坚守的集体优先的伦理,强调的社会凝聚和社会包容理念恰恰是当今中国社会发展中亟需借鉴的。
综上所述,中国学界认为,社会质量的理论虽然来自欧洲,但和我国现阶段社会发展的诸多重大议题相关联,和全面建成小康社会所强调的“富强民主文明和谐”的价值取向高度契合,这一理论也是社会发展理论的新范式。
三 社会质量研究的中国化
对欧洲社会质量理论的吸纳,并不表示以社会质量的理论和指标体系来衡量中国的社会发展状况的必然可行。域外之橘,落土于中国,在学术层面还要开展大量的本土化转换的研究。大概自2010年以来,国内学者林卡、张海东、韩克庆、王星等,对如何把西方社会质量理论和我国社会转型、建设和谐社会相结合进行了广泛而深入的讨论,包括了重新进行理论定向、政策对位、指标厘定的不同层面(参见本书第一章第五节)。其中林卡教授在《社会质量理论的原型及其对亚洲社会的适用性》一文中提出了如何将欧洲语境下的社会质量理论抽离背景,使之成为跨社会、跨文化的普适政策分析工具的步骤
参见林卡《社会质量理论的原型及其对亚洲社会的适用性》,载于《社会质量研究:理论、方法与经验》,社会科学文献出版社2011年版,第140—155页。
,对社会质量研究的本土化极具指导意义。
与此同时,国内研究者也发起了一系列以社会质量为主题的社会调查。第一种是以单一城市为对象的探索性调查。如2009年浙江大学林卡教授带领的社会质量调查团队进行的针对企业员工的调查和2011年在杭州进行的居民调查;2010—2013年上海大学张海东等学者的社会质量团队展开的两次“上海社会质量调查”,并出版了《上海社会质量研究2010—2013》,这是针对单一城市开展社会质量调查的一项较为系统的研究成果;此后中国社会科学院社会学研究所与上海大学开展了“2016年上海社会质量调查”;其余还有2011年厦门大学徐延辉等人在深圳、厦门展开的调查;2012年许芸等也在南京市鼓楼区进行了类似调查。第二种类型属于区域性调查。如上海大学团队于2012年8月至2013年5月间在上海、广东、吉林、河南、甘肃以及云南六省市实施的大型问卷调查,总计收集了5745个有效样本资料。基于这一调查撰写的《2013年中国六城市社会质量的调查报告》发表于《社会蓝皮书:2014年中国社会形势分析与预测》;同时,提交的相关研究报告获得上海、郑州、长春、广州等主要领导批示。
全国范围的社会质量调查始于2013年。中国社会科学院社会学研究所主持的“2013年中国社会状况综合调查”(CSS2013)即以“社会质量与中国梦”为主题;“2015年中国社会状况综合调查”(CSS2015)以“中国社会质量状况”为总体研究主题。这两次调查都在全国31个省市自治区开展居民入户调查,各获得逾万份问卷。基于CSS2015的数据,社会学所课题组撰写了《当前中国社会质量状况调查》载于《社会蓝皮书:2016年中国社会形势分析与预测》。自此以后,作为纵贯研究持续开展的“中国社会状况综合调查”将社会质量设定为固定模块,全国层面的社会质量衡量和评估有了持续的数据资源。
就中国社会科学院社会学研究所团队而言,对社会质量理论和指标体系进行的本土化研究工作包括了以下几个内容。首先,开展了社会质量主题的质性研究。2015年2月—3月,课题组在北京开展了三场焦点组座谈会,有24位参会者出席。焦点组座谈就社会质量的每一个维度中的具体内容,向参会者了解他们的认知理解、知识范围和具体表述内容,以考察社会质量概念化、操作化中的本土化程度。其次,进行了社会质量指标体系的调整。经济与社会保障的模块中,细化了居民家庭收支的测量内容,增加了公众对当前社会保障享有的满意度、对(非农)就业状况的满意度,以及公众对地方政府在社会保障、就业、义务教育等方面的绩效评价。去除了欧洲社会质量指标体系中与我国实情不符或难以获得数据资料的指标,如“对政治稳定性、武装冲突和恐怖袭击的主观感知”“雇主在终止劳动合同前通知雇员的时间长度”等。社会凝聚模块中,增加了优先性选择、规范性取向、社会融入度的社会价值测量,以及公众对当前社会的道德、守法、信仰状况的评价内容。去除了欧洲社会质量指标中有关为改善贫困者和老年人境遇而纳税的意愿的题目。社会包容模块中,结合我国实际,将婚前同居者、同性恋、乞讨者、刑满释放者、有不同宗教信仰者和艾滋病患者确定为边缘群体,以考察公众对其接纳程度;增加了社会公平感的测量内容。删去了原指标体系中女性参与政府/社会组织/企业高层管理的内容,以及社会照料的相关题目。社会赋权模块中,细化了政治和公共参与的内容(选举、政治讨论、反映社会问题、集体行动),增加了政治效能感的测量。原指标体系中西欧国家普遍采用的“工作—家庭生活协调政策”的有关指标被剔除。最后,通过了指标和问卷题目的受访者认知测试。2015年4月下旬,课题组设计出问卷初稿,并在北京市居民中开展了认知测试,共完成65份调查问卷。参与调查的45名社会工作硕士提交了认知测试报告,为问卷设计提供了可贵的参考。
通过上述的质性和量化研究,由中国社会科学院社会学研究所设计的“中国社会质量指标体系”得以成型,主要涉及4个基本维度和15项二级指标、80余项三级指标(详见本书第二章第一节)。当然,社会质量指标体系的中国化还处于尝试阶段,还有极大的完善空间。国内学者已经指出,社会质量指标体系较为适用于我国的城镇地区,特别是大中型城市,对于农村这个广大的区域,其适用性还比较欠缺。社会质量指标架构本身也有待完备,比如我们的研究发现,社会凝聚与社会包容两个模块存在着一定的负向相关,这就为指标的综合合成提出了新的挑战。
本书的调查数据主要来自中国社会科学院社会学研究所开展的“2017年中国社会状况综合调查”(CSS2017),也是中国社会质量状况的第三期调查。同时书中也部分地引入了前两期调查的数据资料,以便能够进行社会质量状况的纵向对比。本书的撰稿由社会学所研究团队的4位研究人员和9位博士、硕士研究生完成。其中各章的撰稿人为:
第一章:社会质量理论研究综述。撰稿人:崔岩、何玲龙
第二章:社会质量调查与数据。撰稿人:任莉颖、贾聪、张宾
第三章:家庭收入与消费。撰稿人:任莉颖、张财兴
第四章:居住和社会保障状况。撰稿人:李炜、李琪
第五章:就业与教育状况。撰稿人:崔岩、石楠
第六章:社会凝聚报告。撰稿人:邹宇春、刘畅
第七章:社会包容报告。撰稿人:崔岩、黄永亮
第八章:社会赋权报告。撰稿人:邹宇春、陈艺华
第九章:社会质量的综合评估。撰稿人:崔岩、贾聪。
其中崔岩副研究员为全书提供了写作大纲,任莉颖副研究员为本书的写作提供了统一的数据版本,邹宇春副研究员、崔岩副研究员负责了全书的通校。另外,社会学所开展的历次社会质量调查数据也发布在“中国社会质量基础数据库平台”(https://cssdata.zkey.cc)、“中国社会状况综合调查”网站(https://css.cssn.cn)、微信公众号“社科院CSS大调查”等平台,面向公众开放。
最后,特别向为中国社会质量研究提供支持的国家社会科学基金、中国社会科学院登峰计划、中国社会科学院社会发展指标综合集成实验室、中国社会科学院—上海研究院等机构和研究计划资助方表示衷心的感谢。
李炜
2019年3月

Since the Enlightenment, Europe has been the birthplace of the concept of human social progress. Equality, freedom, civil rights, social contract, social welfare... These ideas of social progress, which originated in Europe, have become a global consensus. The "Social Quality Theory", which emerged in the late 90s of the 20th century, is a new vision in the past 20 years. On June 10, 1997, at the European Conference held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1,000 European scientists signed and issued the Amsterdam Declaration on the Quality of European Society 5028955 (hereinafter referred to as the Declaration). The declaration, which is less than 1,000 words, expresses the "European dream" of the EU member states: we want European society to be one that is economically successful, but also one that promotes social justice and social participation for all its citizens. This will make Europe a society where social quality is paramount. European citizens can and are required to participate in the social and economic life of their communities in order to enhance their well-being, their personal potential and the welfare of their communities. To be able to participate, citizens need to achieve an acceptable level of economic security and social inclusion, live in a cohesive community, and have the right to develop their full potential. In other words, the quality of society depends on the extent to which all European citizens enjoy the economic, social and political citizenship rights of their communities. In a globalized economy, competition should go hand in hand with the promotion of social cohesion and the realization of the full potential of every European citizen. The concept of social quality has been born in the historical background of the European integration process for decades. The Second World War shattered the mountains and rivers of the European countries and left everything in ruins. Shortly after the war, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the "United States of Europe", which led to the idea of European unification. In 1949, the "Council of Europe" established by the 10 Western and Northern European countries substantially launched the European integration process. In the 50s and 60s of the 20th century, the transnational cooperation mechanisms of Western European countries such as the "European Coal and Steel Community", "European Economic Community" and "European Atomic Energy Community" came out one after another, and until the signing of the Brussels Treaty in 1965, the European Community (European Communities) was officially established. During the Cold War, the European Community, the United States and the Soviet Union together formed the three major forces of the "First World" and played an important role in the world political pattern. The adoption of the Maastricht Treaty by the member states of the European Community in December 1991 and its entry into force on 1 November 1993 marked the official birth of the European Union, marking the culmination of the European integration process: from economic cooperation to all-round substantive economic and political association. What kind of European society will the EU – an integrated Europe – represent? The consensus among EU politicians and academics is that there is a "European Social Model" (ESM) where the quality of society is paramount. In this development model, social quality is defined as "the extent to which people are able to participate in the social and economic life of a community while enhancing their well-being and personal potential", specifically, the level of socio-economic security, social inclusion, social cohesion and autonomy or empowerment. From this, we can see that the concept of social quality is at the core of the values of the European social model. The concept of social quality reflects the multi-level reflection of EU members on the development model in the process of European integration. First, the concept of social quality is a confrontation with the "rightward shift" of European society driven by the neoliberal policy promoted by Thatcherism in the 80s of the 20th century, with privatization, tax cuts, deregulation, encouraging competition, and weakening trade unions as specific measures. Social quality theory takes "sustainable welfare society" as its development prospect. Second, the concept of social quality is an advocacy of a European social model different from the American model. Since World War II, the U.S. development model has placed too much emphasis on economic growth and market supremacy, while traditional European values have focused more on social justice, social inclusion and social solidarity. The development path with European characteristics should be guided by the concept of civil rights and social justice, and should be different from the development model of the United States with liberalism as the purpose. Third, the concept of social quality is the result of the integration of pluralistic institutions and cultures in the process of European integration. From the EC to the EU, the number of Member States joining the integration process has gradually increased. The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the transformation of former socialist countries in Eastern Europe have also led to the continuous expansion of the EU to the east; The issuance of the euro and the opening of borders between member states have enhanced the movement of people and communities within the EU. The integration of economy, politics and culture requires an integrated Europe to share common values and coherent social policies. It can be seen from the above that the proposal of the concept of social quality is not limited to the category of pure scholarship, but has a very clear social policy application orientation. Its key function is to "aim both to serve as a standard by which citizens assess the effectiveness of national and European policies, and as the scientific basis for policy formulation." In view of this, experts and scholars of the European Commission have gradually developed and structured the 12 conditions of social quality in the Declaration into 4 dimensions, 18 fields, 49 sub-fields and 91 indicators, 5028956 the "European Social Quality Indicator System". Although as early as the late 80s of the 20th century, domestic scholars used the concept of "social quality" to carry out academic research, but the content involved was not related to the "social quality theory" advocated by the European Union. Around 2007, social quality theories, index systems, and research paradigms from Europe were introduced into Chinese academia. The detailed process can be found in the fifth section of the first chapter of this book, and the author will not repeat it here. In the past 12 years, the research on social quality in China has progressed rapidly, and it has entered the stage of setting social policy issues from the stage of academic translation and theoretical discussion. From the perspective of research scope, it has also expanded from scattered, local empirical research to large-scale academic investigation nationwide. A theoretical system from a foreign land can be absorbed so quickly by the domestic academic circles and open up a field from theory to empirical research to the application of social policy, which is rare in the field of social science research in recent years. If you try to explore the cause, it may be more appropriate to interpret it with the ancient adage "the stone of the other mountain, you can attack the jade". First, the concept of common prosperity and development contained in China's reform and opening up goals and the orientation of social quality theory to suppress market supremacy are consistent. Using market mechanisms to promote economic growth will inevitably lead to polarization in the pattern of income distribution. In this regard, the Chinese government has been advocating the development concept of getting rich first, driving prosperity later, and eventually achieving common prosperity. As early as 13 December 1978, at the closing ceremony of the CPC Central Work Conference, Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out in his famous speech entitled "Emancipating the Mind, Seeking Truth from Facts, and Looking Forward in Unity and Unity": "In terms of economic policy, I believe that we should allow some regions, some enterprises, and some workers and peasants to earn more and live better first because of their hard work and achievements." When some people's lives get better first, they will inevitably produce great demonstration power, influence their neighbors, and drive people in other areas and other units to learn from them. In this way, the entire national economy will continue to develop in waves, and the people of all ethnic groups throughout the country will be able to become prosperous relatively quickly. In 50289571984, the Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Economic System Reform was officially put forward for the first time in the form of a document of the Party Central Committee: "Only by allowing and encouraging some regions, some enterprises and some people to rely on hard work to get rich first can we have a strong attraction and encouragement effect on the majority of people, and drive more and more people to prosperity wave after wave." 5028958 It can be seen that in the early days of reform and opening up, common prosperity became one of the ultimate goals of the ruling party in the direction of social equity. Since then, successive party congresses and governments have taken common prosperity as the core governing philosophy. In the report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping once again pointed out that our party adheres to the people-centered development thinking and constantly promotes the all-round development of people and the common prosperity of all the people. The idea of persevering in seeking common prosperity for all people and realizing social fairness and justice is highly consistent with the European social quality theory and policy, and the advocacy of developing social protection and promoting social justice with extensive economic social security. Second, China's reform and opening up has entered the stage of sharing results from economic growth, and the social values of fairness and justice have become the core needs of the public. China's total GDP surpassed Germany and Japan in 2008 and 2012 respectively to become the world's second largest economy, with a total GDP of more than 90 trillion yuan in 2018, or $13.6 trillion, which is close to two-thirds of the total US economy in the same period. The contribution rate of final consumption expenditure to GDP growth increased from 38.3% in 1978 to 58.8% in 2017, an increase of 20.5 percentage points in 40 years; the Engel coefficient of urban and rural residents in the same period decreased by 28.9 and 36.5 percentage points respectively compared with 1978; the consumption domestic demand, which has been difficult to boost for a long time, was released and satisfied under the Internet economy, between 2014 and 2107. The online retail sales of physical goods were 5,480.6 billion yuan, with an average annual growth rate of about 30% 5028959. In the era of mass consumption, the public is not only satisfied with the enjoyment of daily necessities and services, but also inevitably puts forward requirements for the universal distribution of public services and social welfare in the fields of employment, education, medical care, social security, etc., and the corresponding concept of social justice has received more and more attention. According to the data from the 2013 Comprehensive Survey of China's Social Conditions (CSS2013), the concepts of equality, democracy, and justice are ranked at the forefront of the values that the public believes a good society should have. In the CSS2017 survey, nearly 3/4 of the public believed that "social security is the responsibility of the government and should not be borne by ordinary people", indicating that the concept of welfare rights has been formed, which has become the "rigid need" of the public and is the core obligation of the government to the people. In such an era background, the advocacy of social justice and social welfare in Europe's "social quality concept" has been particularly favored by Chinese academic circles. Third, since the reform and opening up, China is in the process of continuous differentiation of social group interests, and needs the values of social cohesion and social tolerance to promote the re-engineering of social group relations. At the beginning of reform and opening up, China's social class structure was often referred to as "two major classes" (that is, the working class, the peasant class and the intellectual class). After 40 years of industrialization, marketization, and urbanization, occupational status has continued to diverge, and the new social class form has become more complex than the era of the planning system. Twenty years ago, Mr. Lu Xueyi presided over the topic of "Research on Contemporary Social Classes in China", which proposed that society has been divided into ten major strata 5028960 in the past 20 years after the reform and opening up. Since the second decade of the 21st century, China has taken on new characteristics of phased development. The first is the decline of the urban-rural dual pattern marked by the urbanization rate exceeding 50% in 2011, the second is the industrial upgrading brought about by China's entry into the late stage of industrialization in 2015 (some scholars say that China has entered the post-industrial era), the third is the new wealth creation caused by the boom of the Internet economy, and the fourth is the convenience of social communication created by mobile Internet communication technology, which has a non-negligible impact on China's social class differentiation. The middle class represented by white-collar workers and the middle-income group with urban migrant workers as the main body are growing day by day, "new social groups" have begun to emerge, subcultural groups of young generations such as "ant tribes", "bee tribes", and small-town youth have taken the stage, and the accumulation of social wealth in the past 40 years has also been reflected in intergenerational inheritance, and the phenomenon of class solidification has also made "second generation X" a topic of great concern in society. At the same time, the interest relations of social groups are more complicated, social value orientations are more diverse, and the fans of social core values also present differences between generations, between urban and rural areas, and between elites and grassroots. Throughout the 70 years of the Republic, there has never been a diverse group of groups, multiple interests, multi-dimensional values, and multiple voices in today's society. The integration of a pluralistic society must rely on the social value principles and social behavior rules of mutual respect, mutual trust, mutual assistance and compatibility that are accepted and followed by the vast number of members of society. From this point of view, the ethics of collective priority adhered to by the European social quality theory, and the concept of social cohesion and social inclusion emphasized are precisely what needs to be learned from in China's social development today. To sum up, Chinese scholars believe that although the theory of social quality comes from Europe, it is related to many major issues of China's current social development, and is highly consistent with the value orientation of "prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized and harmonious" emphasized by the comprehensive construction of a moderately prosperous society, and this theory is also a new paradigm of social development theory. Third, the Sinicization of social quality research and the absorption of European social quality theory do not mean that it is necessarily feasible to measure China's social development with the theory and index system of social quality. Extraterritorial oranges, settled in China, need to carry out a lot of research on localization transformation at the academic level. Since about 2010, domestic scholars such as Linka, Zhang Haidong, Han Keqing, Wang Xing, etc. have conducted extensive and in-depth discussions on how to combine Western social quality theory with China's social transformation and the construction of a harmonious society, including different aspects of re-theoretical orientation, policy alignment, and index determination (see Chapter 1, Section 5 of this book). In his article "The Prototype of Social Quality Theory and Its Applicability to Asian Society", Professor Rinca proposed how to remove social quality theory from the background in the European context and make it a cross-social and cross-cultural universal policy analysis tool 5028961, which is of great guiding significance for the localization of social quality research. At the same time, domestic researchers have also launched a series of social surveys on the theme of social quality. The first is an exploratory survey of a single city. For example, in 2009, the social quality survey team led by Professor Lin Ka of Zhejiang University conducted a survey of enterprise employees and a resident survey conducted in Hangzhou in 2011; From 2010 to 2013, the social quality team of Zhang Haidong and other scholars of Shanghai University conducted two "Shanghai Social Quality Surveys", and published "Shanghai Social Quality Research 2010-2013", which is a more systematic research result of social quality survey for a single city. Since then, the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Shanghai University have carried out the "2016 Shanghai Social Quality Survey"; The rest include a survey conducted by Xu Yanhui and others at Xiamen University in Shenzhen and Xiamen in 2011; In 2012, Xu Yun and others also conducted a similar investigation in Nanjing's Gulou District. The second type is a regional survey. For example, from August 2012 to May 2013, the Shanghai University team conducted a large-scale questionnaire survey in six provinces and cities in Shanghai, Guangdong, Jilin, Henan, Gansu and Yunnan, collecting a total of 5745 valid sample data. Based on this survey, the "2013 Survey Report on Social Quality in Six Cities in China" was published in the "Social Blue Book: Analysis and Forecast of China's Social Situation in 2014". At the same time, the relevant research reports submitted have been approved by the main leaders of Shanghai, Zhengzhou, Changchun and Guangzhou. A nationwide social quality survey began in 2013. The "2013 Comprehensive Survey on China's Social Conditions" (CSS2013) hosted by the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is themed "Social Quality and the Chinese Dream"; The "2015 Comprehensive Survey of China's Social Conditions" (CSS2015) takes "China's Social Quality Status" as the overall research theme. In both surveys, household surveys were conducted in 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions across the country, and more than 10,000 questionnaires were obtained each. Based on the data of CSS2015, the research group of the Institute of Sociology wrote the "Survey of the Current Social Quality in China" and published it in the "Social Blue Book: Analysis and Forecast of China's Social Situation in 2016". Since then, the "Comprehensive Survey of China's Social Conditions", which has been continuously carried out as a long-term study, has set social quality as a fixed module, and there is a continuous data resource for social quality measurement and evaluation at the national level. As far as the team of the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is concerned, the localization research work on social quality theory and indicator system includes the following contents. First, qualitative research on the topic of social quality was carried out. From February to March 2015, the research group held three focus group symposiums in Beijing, attended by 24 participants. The focus group discussion asked the participants about the specific content in each dimension of social quality, and learned about their cognitive understanding, knowledge scope and specific expression content, so as to examine the degree of localization in the conceptualization and operation of social quality. Second, the social quality index system has been adjusted. In the module of economic and social security, the measurement content of household income and expenditure is detailed, and the public's satisfaction with the current social security enjoyment, the satisfaction of the (non-farm) employment situation, and the public's performance evaluation of local governments in social security, employment, compulsory education and other aspects are added. Indicators in the European system of social quality indicators that do not correspond to the actual situation in our country or for which data are difficult to obtain have been removed, such as "subjective perception of political stability, armed conflict and terrorist attacks" and "length of time for employers to notify employees before terminating employment contracts". In the social cohesion module, priority selection, normative orientation, social value measurement of social integration, and public evaluation of the morality, law-abiding, and belief status of the current society are added. The question of the European Social Quality Indicators relating to the willingness to pay taxes in order to improve the situation of the poor and the elderly has been removed. In the social inclusion module, combined with the actual situation in China, premarital cohabitants, homosexuals, beggars, ex-prisoners, people with different religious beliefs and AIDS patients are identified as marginalized groups to examine the degree of public acceptance of them; Added measurement of social fairness. The content of women's participation in senior management of government/social organizations/enterprises in the original indicator system, as well as topics related to social care, have been deleted. In the social empowerment module, the content of politics and public participation (elections, political discussions, reflecting social issues, collective action) is detailed, and the measurement of political efficacy is added. The relevant indicators of the "work-family life coordination policy", which was commonly used in Western European countries in the original indicator system, were excluded. Finally, the respondents who passed the indicator and questionnaire questions were tested for their cognition. In late April 2015, the research team designed the first draft of the questionnaire and conducted cognitive tests among Beijing residents, completing a total of 65 questionnaires. The 45 social work masters who participated in the survey submitted cognitive test reports, which provided valuable references for questionnaire design. Through the above-mentioned qualitative and quantitative research, the "Chinese Social Quality Index System" designed by the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has taken shape, mainly involving 4 basic dimensions, 15 second-level indicators, and more than 80 third-level indicators (see Chapter 2, Section 1 of this book for details). Of course, the sinicization of the social quality index system is still in the experimental stage, and there is still great room for improvement. Domestic scholars have pointed out that the social quality index system is more applicable to China's urban areas, especially large and medium-sized cities, and its applicability to the vast rural area is still relatively lacking. For example, our study finds that there is a certain negative correlation between the two modules of social cohesion and social inclusion, which poses new challenges for the comprehensive synthesis of indicators. The survey data in this book is mainly from the "2017 Comprehensive Survey on China's Social Conditions" (CSS2017) conducted by the Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which is also the third phase of the survey on the quality of Chinese society. At the same time, the data of the first two surveys are also partially introduced in the book so that longitudinal comparisons of the quality of society can be made. This book was written by 4 researchers and 9 doctoral and master's students from the research team of the Institute of Sociology. Each chapter is written by: Chapter 1: A Review of Social Quality Theory. Contributors: Cui Yan and He Linglong Chapter 2: Social Quality Survey and Data. Contributors: Ren Liying, Jia Cong, Zhang Bin Chapter 3: Household Income and Consumption. Contributors: Ren Liying and Zhang Caixing Chapter 4: Housing and Social Security Status. Contributors: Wei Li and Qi Li Chapter 5: Employment and Education. Written by: Cui Yan and Heather Chapter 6: Social Cohesion Report. Written by: Zou Yuchun and Liu Chang Chapter 7: Social Inclusion Report. Written by: Cui Yan and Huang Yongliang Chapter 8: Social Empowerment Report. Contributors: Zou Yuchun and Chen Yihua Chapter 9: Comprehensive Assessment of Social Quality. Contributors: Cui Yan, Jia Cong. Among them, Associate Researcher Cui Yan provided the writing outline for the whole book, Associate Researcher Ren Liying provided a unified data version for the writing of this book, and Associate Researcher Zou Yuchun and Associate Researcher Cui Yan were responsible for the whole book. In addition, the data of the previous social quality surveys carried out by the Institute of Sociology have also been released on the "China Social Quality Basic Database Platform" (https://cssdata.zkey.cc), the "Comprehensive Survey of China's Social Conditions" website (https://css.cssn.cn), and the WeChat public account "CSS Survey of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences", which are open to the public. Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the National Social Science Foundation of China, the Peak Program of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Comprehensive Integration Laboratory of Social Development Indicators of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences-Shanghai Research Institute and other institutions and research program funders for their support in China's social quality research. Li Wei, March 2019(AI翻译)

置顶